Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Remote versus face-to-face fall risk assessment in home dwelling older adults: a reliability study.
Toledano-Shubi, Adi; Hel-Or, Hagit; Sarig Bahat, Hilla.
Afiliación
  • Toledano-Shubi A; Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
  • Hel-Or H; Department of Computer Science, The Herta and Paul Amir Faculty of Social Science, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
  • Sarig Bahat H; Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Physiother Theory Pract ; : 1-9, 2024 Jun 16.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38881165
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Falls are a leading cause of severe injury and death in older adults. Remote screening of fall risk may prevent falls and hence, advance health and wellness of older adults. While remote health care is becoming a common practice, we question if remote evaluation of fall risk is as reliable as face-to-face (FTF).

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the inter-tester reliability of synchronized remote and FTF fall risk assessment.

METHODS:

This inter-format, inter-rater reliability study included 48 home dwelling older adults aged 65 and over. Five valid functional and balance tests were conducted 30 Second Sit-to-Stand (STS), MiniBESTest, Timed up and go (TUG), 4-Meter Walk (4MWT), and Berg Balance Scale (BBS). Instructions were provided via videoconferencing, and two physiotherapists scored performance simultaneously, one remotely, and one in the room. Inter-rater reliability between remote and FTF scores was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC95) and Bland and Altman analysis.

RESULTS:

Excellent ICCs were found for STS, MiniBESTest, TUG, and BBS (0.90-0.99), and moderate for 4MWT (0.74). SEM and MDC95 values were STS (0.37,1.03 repetitions), MiniBESTest (1.43,3.97 scores), TUG (1.22,3.37 seconds), 4MWT (0.17,0.47 m/second), and BBS (1.79,4.95 scores). The Bland and Altman analysis showed excellent agreement between remote and FTF assessments of the STS. All other tests showed low to moderate agreement. Mean difference ± SD and 95%LOA were as follows STS (-0.11 ± 0.52), (-1.13,0.91) repetitions, MiniBESTest (0.45 ± 1.98), (-3.43,4.32) scores, TUG (-0.35 ± 1.54), (-3.37,2.67) seconds, 4MWT (-0.08 ± 0.22), (-0.35,0.51) meter/second, and BBS (0.04 ± 2.53), (-4.93,5.01) scores.

CONCLUSIONS:

The findings support the responsible integration of remote fall risk assessment in clinical practice, enabling large-scale screenings and referrals for early intervention to promote healthy aging and fall prevention.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Physiother Theory Pract Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA FISICA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Israel

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Physiother Theory Pract Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA FISICA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Israel
...